Now he says the economy would be booming if not for government
interference:

"I conclude that the current government activism is hampering
what should be a broadbased robust economic recovery, driven in
significant part by the positive wealth effect of a buoyant U.S.
and global stock market."

Greenspan says we're finally turning the corner:

"As the pace of new federal interventions slowed towards the end
of 2010, aversion to illiquid risk appeared to be subsiding...
Short of a full-blown Middle East crisis affecting oil prices, a
euro crisis and/or a bond market (budget) crisis reminiscent of
1979, the ‘wealth effect’ could effectively substitute private
‘stimulus’ for public."

As evidence of government activism, Greenspan points to the low
level of fixed asset investment, which according to his model
should be 55% higher. He blames this discretion on things like
financial regulation, moral hazard and government spending.

A reasonable interpretation of this regression is that it does
not show what is causing the slow recovery. This isn't
Greenspan's tack. Instead, he takes the 55 percent his model
doesn't explain and declares "activism" a "likely explanation."
Without much evidence, he also decides that government
intervention is such a strong contender for explaining this
admittedly "indeterminate" variation that he is willing to
declare that a full half of the variation results from the ill
effects of the state.